La diseguaglianza economica dal 1900 ad oggi

Chartbook of Economic Inequality1
A B Atkinson,
Nuffield College, Oxford, London School of Economics and Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford
Martin School
Salvatore Morelli,
CSEF – University of Naples – Federico II and Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School
March 2014
Purpose
The purpose of this Chartbook is to present a summary of evidence about long-run
changes in economic inequality – primarily income, earnings, and wealth – for 25
countries covering more than one hundred years. There is a range of countries and
they account for more than a third of the world’s population: Argentina, Brazil,
Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Italy,
Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal,
Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the US. The
results are presented in 25 charts, one for each country, together with a
description of the sources. The underlying figures are available for download at
www.chartbookofeconomicinequality.com.
We aim to provide for each country five indicators covering on an annual basis:
• Overall income inequality (shown in the charts by squares);
• Top income shares (shown by pyramids)
• Income (or consumption) based poverty measures (shown by stars);
• Dispersion of individual earnings (shown by diamonds);
• Top wealth shares (shown by circles).
This is ambitious and our charts fall a long way short of being complete, as is
illustrated in Table 1, which shows the dates at which, for each country, the five
indicators commence. In the past, more evidence was available about the upper
part of the distribution, and our indicators cover the top income shares more fully.
For the other indicators, coverage is more limited. In only about a quarter of the
125 cases, do the data start before 1945. In many cases data are not always
available for every year and there are gaps in the series. These are joined within
the graphs but it is worth noting that this may well miss important year-to-year
variations. In some cases, particularly for wealth, we have located no time series
at all. For the 125 cells in Table 1 there are 18 blanks.
1
The assembly of the data for this chartbook has formed part of the Inequality project at the
Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School and have had the financial support of
the INET grant (IN01100021). An earlier version of the Chartbook was circulated with the title
“Chartbook of Economic Inequality: 25 Countries 1911-2010”, INET Research Note series #15.
For their help and advice, we thank Facundo Alvaredo, Hans Baumann, Andrea Brandolini, Leonardo
Gasparini, Arthur B. Kennickell, Andrew Leigh, René Levy, Max Roser, Wiemer Salverda, Giovanni
Vecchi, Daniel Waldenström, and Angela Wenham but they are not to be held in any way responsible
for any errors or omissions.

Our emphasis is on change over time. We have therefore concentrated on
comparability over time, and for this reason presented the evidence country by
country.
What do the indicators show?
For each of the five indicators, we have a “preferred” definition (or, in one case, a
“standard” definition), but we have had to depart from this where no data are
available on this basis. To aid the reader, we have in the charts marked by the
symbol (*) the series based on the preferred (or standard) definition. In a number
of countries, this includes cases where the data are available for the preferred
definition only for the later part of the period, and we have had to piece together
series with different definitions. Where the series is not so identified, we have
indicated the reason by italicising the relevant part of the description.
In the case of overall income inequality, our preferred definition is the distribution
of equivalised (using a scale to allow for differences in household size and
composition) household disposable income, defined as income from all sources,
including transfer payments, minus direct taxes and social security contributions.
The equivalence scale used in most cases is the “modified OECD scale”, which gives
a weight of 1 to the first adult, of 0.5 to each additional adult, and of 0.3 to each
child. This means that the income of a family of 2 adults and 2 children is divided
by 2.1. In some cases, other scales are employed, such as the square root scale,
where income is divided by the square root of the household size (2 in the example
just given). The distribution is among persons: each individual appears in the
distribution with the equivalised income of the household. No allowance is made
for within-household inequality. In a number of cases, the definitions in the
available statistics depart from this preferred version. For example, income may
not be adjusted for household size and composition, or the distribution may relate
to gross income, before the deduction of income and social security taxes. Because
the income tax is usually progressive, inequality is typically higher for gross income
than for disposable income.
The distribution is summarised in a single summary statistic, typically the Gini
coefficient, which is not our preferred statistic but that most commonly published
by statistical agencies. The explanation of the coefficient given by most agencies
takes the form of geometry, but we prefer to describe it in terms of the mean
difference. A Gini coefficient of G per cent means that, if we take any 2
households from the population at random, the expected difference is 2G per cent
of the mean. So that a rise in the Gini coefficient from 30 to 40 per cent implies
that the expected difference has gone up from 60 to 80 per cent of the mean.
Another useful way of thinking, suggested by Amartya Sen, is in terms of
“distributionally adjusted” national income, which with the Gini coefficient is (100-
G) per cent of national income. So that a rise in the Gini coefficient from 30 to 40
per cent is equivalent to reducing national income by 14 per cent (1/7).
Much of the evidence about top income shares is derived from tax records, and our
standard – although not necessarily preferred – definition is gross income for tax
purposes before deduction of allowable outgoings. In some cases, income includes
2

capital gains and losses, although where there is a choice (as for the United States
and Sweden), we have omitted capital gains and losses. Transfer income is covered
to varying degrees in different countries. Because the tax system is typically
progressive, the top shares in disposable income are smaller: for example, in the
UK in 2000 the share of the top 1 per cent in before tax income was 12.7 per cent,
whereas the share in after tax income was 10.0 per cent. It is also worth noting
that the measuring unit is typically not the household but the unit reporting
income for tax purposes (the tax unit is typically formed by married couples and
unmarried adults or adults only depending on the taxation regime of each country).
The evidence about top shares is presented in terms of the shares of, typically, the
top 0.1 per cent and the top 1 per cent. These are readily interpreted: a share of
10 per cent for the top 1 per cent means that they receive 10 times their
proportionate share of income. A share of 4 per cent for the top 0.1 per cent
means that they receive 40 times their proportionate share of income. Our
preferred definition of poverty follows that adopted in the European Union (EU)
agreed common social indicators: a relative measure set at 60 (or 50) per cent of
the median equivalised disposable income in the country in question. In some
cases, the figures presented relate to absolute poverty measures based on a
poverty line fixed over time in terms of purchasing power. It should be stressed
that the relative measure is not simply a measure of inequality. It would be quite
possible for the EU measure to be reduced to zero without inequality being
eliminated: a situation where no one receives less than 60 per cent of the median
is quite consistent with considerable inequality.
Our preferred definition of earnings dispersion refers to the wage and salary
received by those in employment and whose employment was not affected by
absence. The indicator used in most cases is the ratio of earnings at the top decile
(the person 10 per cent from the top) to the median earnings expressed as a
percentage. This is a measure of how far the distribution of earnings is spread out
at the top: a figure of 180 per cent means that those in the top 10 per cent of
earnings receive 80 per cent or more in excess of median earnings.
The indicator of wealth is taken to be the net worth of either individuals (as in
estate data) or of households (as in survey data). “Net” means that all liabilities
(debts) have been subtracted from the total assets (real and financial); the figure
for some households is negative (for example where the mortgage exceeds the
value of the property). The summary indicator used in most cases is the share of
the top 1 per cent. A figure of 25 per cent means that the top 1 per cent owns 25
times their proportionate share.
Linking of series over time
Discontinuities in statistical series on inequality are frequent. The US Census
Bureau “selected measure of household income dispersion” covers the period from
1967 to the present, but there are no fewer than 19 footnotes indicating changes in
the processing method. This is more than one every third year. Dealing with these
is a matter for judgment. The rules we have followed are (a) to accept in general
continuous published series, (b) to link assuming a proportional relationship series
3

shown with overlapping observations in the same table (i.e. link at 1970 by
multiplying the pre-1970 series by the ratio of 1970 new to 1970 old), and (c) to
link in the same way overlapping series from other sources where there appears to
be a sufficiently close definition (we recognise that this is a matter for judgment).
Where these conditions are not satisfied, then we show multiple series. The
proportionate linking means that the reader can rely on the year-to-year
percentage changes, but means that the figures graphed here may differ from
those in the original sources.
Scaling
In choosing the scaling of the graphs, we preferred the scale that guaranteed the
clearest possible visualisation of the series. Therefore, we warn the reader that
the scale of the graphs is not always comparable across countries.
Sources
The sources are described for each country on the page following the chart. We
have tried in all cases to check the figures against the original sources. The
importance of such checking may be illustrated by reference to South Africa. In
seeking data on the overall distribution, we had identified a series for the Gini
coefficient covering the years from 1960 to 1987 in the World Income Inequality
Database (WIID). Given the problems of securing long-term distributional data for
that country, this appeared too good to be true. This proved to be the case.
Investigation of the original source (Lachmann and Bercuson, 1992, Table 2)
revealed that the title was “Gini coefficients assuming income equality within
racial groups”. The data showed the differences between races, which is an
important part, but only part, of the story. These data do not measure overall
inequality and are not used here.
In this exercise, we have made use of valuable building blocks. In particular the
studies of top incomes, largely resulting from the project organised by Atkinson
and Piketty (2007 and 2010), provide an anchor for the empirical analysis. This
project gave rise to the World Top Incomes Database (referred to below as WTID),
administered by Facundo Alvaredo. But we wish also to cover, as far as possible,
the distribution as a whole, and to follow what happens to poverty as well as
riches. The series that we present therefore show not only top income shares but
also measures of overall inequality and measures of low incomes. Here we are able
to draw on the collection of historical data assembled over the years by Atkinson
and Brandolini (see for example, Brandolini, 2002).
The general sources on which we have drawn are:
Atkinson, A B, 2008, The changing distribution of earnings in OECD countries,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Atkinson, A B and Piketty, T, editors, 2007, Top incomes over the twentieth
century, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Atkinson, A B and Piketty, T, editors, 2010, Top incomes: a global perspective,
4

Brandolini, A, 2002, “A bird’s eye view of long-run changes in income inequality”,
Bank of Italy Research Department, Rome.
Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) Key Figures, downloaded from LIS website 15
October 2010; it should be noted that the country coverage of LIS is being
extended: in February 2014 the Key Figures covered 40 countries, including 17 of
those included in this chartbook.
World Top Incomes Data-Base (WTID), created and administred by F. Alvaredo,
We owe a considerable debt to the many researchers who have contributed to
these sources.
Findings:
The main aim of the Chartbook is to allow readers to draw their own conclusions,
but we have included below each chart a table summarising our answers to the
following questions:
•Has the dispersion of earnings been increasing in recent decades?
• Has overall income inequality increased in recent years?
• Have there been periods when overall inequality fell in a sustained way?
• Has poverty been rising or falling over the past decades?
• The US and certain other countries have seen top income shares first fall and
then rise, is there a U-shaped pattern of this kind?
• Has the concentration of wealth moved in the same way as income inequality?
• Are there other particularly note-worthy features?
These are only some of the questions that readers will want to ask, but they
capture some of the issues in current debate. It is, for example, widely held that
there is a general upward trend in income inequality. How far is this in fact the
case? The answer will of course depend in part by our view as to what constitutes
a “salient” rise. In the case of both the Gini coefficient and the share of the top 1
per cent, we take a 3 percentage point difference as salient.
5

Table 1 Coverage of data (first year of data)
Country Overall inequality Top income shares Poverty Earnings Wealth
Argentina 1953 1932 1980 - -
Australia 1942 1921 1981 1975 -1915
Brazil 1960 1960 1984 2002 -
Canada 1959 1920 1976 1931 -
Finland 1920 1920 1971 1971 1909 (1800)
France 1956 1915 1970 1950 1911
Germany 1950 1911 (1891) 1962 1929 1973
Iceland 1992 1992 1986 1986 -
India 1951 1922 1983 1983 -
Indonesia 1964 1920 1976 - -
Italy 1901 (1861) 1974 1977 1973 -
Japan 1923 1900 (1886) 1985 1980 1983
Malaysia 1957 1947 1970 - -
Mauritius 1962 1933 1996 - -
Netherlands 1959 1914 1977 1977 1905 (1894)
New Zealand 1951 1921 1982 1958 1956
Norway 1973 1900 (1875) 1979 1986 1912 (1789)
Portugal 1967 1936 1980 1982 -
Singapore 1966 1947 - 1965 -
South Africa 1960 1913 1970 1997 -
Spain 1964 1954 1973 2004 -
Sweden 1951 1911 (1903) 1975 1975 1908 (1800)
Switzerland 1950 1933 1982 1991 1915
UK 1938 19132
1961 1954 1923 (1740)
US 1918 1913 1948 1939 1916 (1774)
Note: In a few cases the actual initial year of the series (within the original sources)
precedes the year 1900 and this is indicated within the table in italics and parenthesis.
Series are not always continuous.
2
It is worth noting that UK Top 0.1 % series starts in 1913 whereas top 0.05% and top 0.01% shares
start in 1908.
6

1. Argentina
01020304050
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - household income, #1 Gini - household income (Greater Buenos Aires), #2
Gini - household per-cap. income- Urban Pop., #3 Top 1% share, gross income (*)
Top 0.1% share, gross income (*) Poverty rate, Urban Pop.
www.chartbookofeconomicinequality.com - Atkinson and Morelli (2014)- Creative Commons Licence: CC BY-NC-SA
Economic Inequality in Argentina
Has the dispersion of earnings been increasing
in recent decades?
No evidence.
Has overall inequality increased in recent
years?
No, the Gini coefficient has instead fallen by 8
percentage points since 2001.
Have there been periods when overall inequality
fell for a sustained period?
Yes, in addition to the recent years, overall inequality
and top shares fell from early 1950s to end of the 1970s.
Has poverty been falling or rising in recent
decades?
Poverty has risen sharply during the 1980s and fallen
from 1989 to 1993. It then rose dramatically till 2002
before falling sharply again till 2010.
Has there been a U-pattern for top income
shares over time?
Yes, top gross income shares fell from 1943 to 1973, and
have risen in recent decade.
Has the distribution of wealth followed the
same pattern as income?
No evidence.
Noteworthy features Rise in poverty rate before 1989 and 2002.
7

Sources for the historical data series:
Overall inequality: series 1: Gini coefficient for household income from national
CONADE-CEPAL estimates from Altimir (1986, Cuadro 7); series 2: Gini coefficient
for household income for Greater Buenos Aires from Altimir (1986, Cuadro 4,
original figures); series 3: Gini coefficient for household per capita income for the
urban population (Greater Buenos Aires from 1974 to 1992, 15 main cities from
1992 to 1998, 28 main cities from 1998 to 2003, now covers approximately 60 per
cent of total population) from SEDLAC (Socio-Economic Database for Latin America
and the Caribbean), a joint CEDLAS and World Bank project – see Gasparini and
Cruces, 2008, and Gasparini, Cruces and Tornarolli, 2011), linked backwards at
1992 to the series from 1974 for Greater Buenos Aires (only).
Top income shares: Shares of top 1 and 0.1 per cent in total gross income Share of
from WTID, based on work of Alvaredo (2010).
Poverty: Percentage below of individuals below national poverty line for urban
population (Greater Buenos Aires from 1974 to 1992, 15 main cities from 1992 to
1998, 28 main cities from 1998 to 2003, now covers approximately 60 per cent of
total population), from SEDLAC (see above), linked backwards at 1992 as described
above.
Individual earnings: no suitable data were found.
Wealth: no suitable data were found.
References:
Altimir, O, 1986, “Estimaciones de la distibución del ingreso en la Argentina, 1953-
1980”, Desarrollo Económico, vol 25: 521-566.
Alvaredo, F, 2010, “The rich in Argentina over the twentieth century 1932-2004” in
A B Atkinson and T Piketty, editors, Top incomes: A global perspective, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Gasparini, L and Cruces, G, 2008, “A distribution in motion: The case of
Argentina”, CEDLAS, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
Gasparini, L, Cruces, G and Tornarolli, R, 2011, “Recent trends in income
inequality in Latin America”, Economia, vol 11: 147-190.
8

2. Australia
170
180
190
200
210
220
010203040
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - individual taxable income Gini - gross household income
Gini - equiv disposable household income (*) Top 1% share, gross income (*)
Top 0.1% share, gross income (*) % living in households with income below 60% of median (*)
Top 1% share, total wealth (*) Earnings at top decile as % median (*)
Economic Inequality in Australia
in recent decades?
Yes, top decile of earnings has increased from 175 per
cent of median in 1975 to 215 per cent in 2012.
years?
Yes, Gini coefficient has increased by 5 percentage points
since 1981.
Yes, overall inequality and top shares fell from early
1950s to end of the 1970s.
decades?
Risen since 1981.
shares over time?
Yes, top gross income shares fell from 1921 to around
1980 and then began to rise, reaching pre-war levels
before the 2007 crisis.
Yes, the share in total wealth of the wealthiest 1% of the
population dropped more than threefold from 1915 to the
end of 1970s before rising again till the onset of 2007
crisis. However, the rise was not sufficient to return to
pre-war levels of concentration.
Additional noteworthy features Rising inequality on all (observable) dimensions for past
thirty years.
9

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient for individual gross income from Hancock (1971,
Table 4); Gini coefficient of equivalised disposable household income from Table
S.5, Household income and income distribution, 2011-12, publication 6523.0 on
website of Australian Bureau of Statistics, where we have taken account of the
change in methodology in 2007-8 by calculating a figure for that year based on the
change in the estimates obtained on the "former basis" (1.2 percentage points)
from Table A7 of the 2007-8 report, and then subtracting the difference (1
percentage point) from the estimates for subsequent years (access the 2011-2012
original data here); linked at 1995 to series from Luxembourg Income Study (LIS)
Key Figures; Gini coefficient for gross household income calculated from Ingles
(1981, Table 9).
Top income shares: Share of top 1 per cent in total gross income from WTID, based
on work of Atkinson and Leigh (2007).
Poverty: Percentage of individuals in households with equivalised (square root
scale) disposable income below 60 per cent of the median from Luxembourg
Income Study (LIS) Key Figures.
Individual earnings: From May survey, Employee Earnings and Hours (all employees)
taken from Atkinson (2008, Appendix A, Table A.5), updated from reports for 2006
(Table 5), 2008 (Table 6),2010 (Table 8) and 2012 (Table 1) from website of
Australian Bureau of Statistics, linked backwards at 1998 to series back to 1975
given by OECD (Atkinson, 2008, Table A.3).
Wealth: Share of top 1 percent in total household wealth from Katic and Leigh
(2013, Appendix Tables, Table A1 and A2): 1915 observation based on national
wealth survey (tabulations), inheritance tax series used from 1953 to 1978 (when
the inheritance tax was abolished), and more recent observations based on
national wealth surveys (micro data).
References:
Atkinson, A B and Leigh, A, 2007, “The distribution of top incomes in Australia”,
Economic Record, vol 83: 247-261.
10

Hancock, K, 1971, “The economics of social welfare in the 1970s”, in H Weir,
editor, Social welfare in the 1970’s, Australian Council of Social Science, Sydney.
Ingles, D, 1981, Statistics on the distribution of income and wealth in Australia,
Research Paper no 14, Department of Social Security, Canberra.
Katic, P. and A. Leigh, 2013, “Top Wealth Shares in Australia: 1915-2012”,
unpublished manuscript.
Saunders, P, 1993, “Longer run changes in the distribution of income in Australia”,
Economic Record, vol 69: 353-366.
11

3. Brazil
020406080
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - household income Gini - household per-capita income
Top 1% share, gross income (*) % of individuals with income below national poverty line
Gini individual earnings - metropolitan regions
Economic Inequality in Brazil
Has the inequality of earnings been increasing
in recent decades?
No, earnings dispersion (Gini coefficient) has fallen in
recent decade.
years?
No, the Gini coefficient has fallen by 5 percentage points
between 2001 and 2009.
Yes, the recent decade.
decades?
Falling over past twenty years.
shares over time?
Incomplete evidence
No evidence
Additional noteworthy features High level of overall income inequality.
12

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient for household per capita income from SEDLAC
(Socio-Economic Database for Latin America and the Caribbean), a joint CEDLAS
and World Bank project – see Gasparini, Cruces and Tornarolli; Gini coefficient for
household income for 1960 and 1970 from Langoni (1973a, Table 2; see also 1978),
see also Fishlow (1972, Tables 1 and 5).
Top income shares: Share of top 1 per cent in total household income for 1960 and
1970 from Langoni (1978, Tabela 1.1 and 3.3).
Poverty: Percentage below of individuals below national poverty line, from SEDLAC
(CEDLAS and the World Bank).
Individual earnings: Gini coefficient for labour earnings in six main metropolitan
regions, persons aged 15-60, from Neri (2010, Table 2.3, June figures).
References:
Fishlow, A, 1972, “Brazilian size distribution of income”, American Economic
Review, Papers and Proceedings, vol 62: 391-402.
Gasparini, L, Cruces, G and Tornarolli, R, 2011, “Recent trends in income
inequality in Latin America”, Economia, vol 11: 147-190.
Langoni, C G, 1978 (first edition 1973), Distribuição de Renda e Desenvolvimento
Econômico do Brasil?, Expressão e Cultura, Rio de Janeiro.
Langoni, C G, 1973a, “Income distribution and economic development: The
Brazilian case”, working paper.
Langoni, C G, 1975, “Review of income data: Brazil”, Research Program in
Economic Development Discussion Paper 60.
Neri, M C, 2010, “The decade of falling income inequality and formal employment
generation in Brazil” in Tackling inequalities in Brazil, China, India and South
Africa, OECD, Paris.
13

4. Canada
150
200
250
300
010203040
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - gross income for non-farm families Gini - equiv gross household income
Top 0.1% share, gross income (*) % in households with income below 50% of median (*)
Earnings at top decile as % median #1, (*) Earnings at top decile as % median #2, (*)
Economic Inequality in Canada
in recent decades?
Yes, top decile of earnings has been rising relative to the
median since early 1950s.
years?
Yes, Gini coefficient is around 3 percentage points higher
than in 1989 but most of the increase took place in the
1990s.
Incomplete evidence
decades?
Poverty fell in the 1980’s and then rose.
shares over time?
Yes, top gross income shares fell from 1938 until the mid-
1980s and then began to rise.
No evidence
Additional noteworthy features
14

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient of equivalised (from 2010 square root scale)
after-tax family unit income from website of Statistics Canada, Table 202-0709;
Gini coefficient for equivalised gross family income for 1965 to 1983 from Wolfson
(1986, Table 3); Gini coefficient for gross family income restricted to non-farm
families for 1959-1971 from Love (1979, Table A.3).
on work of Saez and Veall (2007) and Veall (2010).
Poverty: Percentage of individuals in households with equivalised after-tax annual
income below 50 per cent of the median from website of Statistics Canada, Table
202-0802.
Individual earnings: Series 1 from Atkinson (2008, Appendix C, Table C.4); Series 2
from OECD iLibrary, Employment and Labour Market Statistics, Gross earnings
decile ratios.
References:
Atkinson, A B, 2008, The changing distribution of earnings in OECD countries, Oxford
Love, R, 1979, Income distribution and inequality in Canada, Ministry of Supply and
Services, Ottawa.
Saez, E and Veall, M R, 2007, “The evolution of high incomes in Canada: 1920-
2000” in A B Atkinson and T Piketty, editors, Top incomes over the twentieth
Veall, M R, 2010, “Top income shares in Canada: Updates and extensions”, working
paper, McMaster University.
Wolfson, M C, 1986, “Stasis Amid Change – Income Inequality in Canada 1965-1983”,
Review of Income and Wealth, vol 32: 337-69.
15

5. Finland
165
170
175
180
185
190
0204060
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - taxable income among tax units Gini - equiv disposable household income (*)
Top 1% share, gross income, #1 (*) Top 1% share, gross income, #2 (*)
% in households with income below 60% of median (*) Top 1% share in total wealth (*)
Earnings at top decile as % median, (*)
Economic Inequality in Finland
in recent decades?
Yes, top decile of earnings has risen from 165 per cent of
median in 1980 to 176 per cent in 2008.
years?
Yes, Gini coefficient for disposable income now around 6
percentage points higher than in 1990.
Yes, overall inequality fell in early 1920s, in 1930s and
from 1966 to end of 1970s.
decades?
Poverty fell from 1971 to early 1990s, since then
increased and in 2010 remains double the 1993 rate.
shares over time?
Not a classic U-shape: rise in share of top 1 per cent in
1950s.
Long-term fall in the share of top 1 per cent over much of
twentieth century, followed by rise starting in mid-1990s.
Additional noteworthy features Substantial movements in all aspects of distribution.
16

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient of equivalised (EU scale) household disposable
cash3
income from 1966 from website of Statistics Finland, Income and
Consumption, Income Distribution Statistics; it should be noted that the figures for
1966-1981, 1987-1992, and from 1993 are not fully comparable and that the figures
prior to 2002 use the OECD equivalence scale; earlier series for distribution among
tax units based on tax records from 1920 to 1966 from Jäntti et al (2010, Table
8A.1), see also Berglund et al (1998) and Eriksson and Jäntti (1998).
on work of Jäntti et al (2010); Series 1 is based on income tax records, Series 2 is
based on the Income Distribution Survey.
Poverty: Percentage of individuals in households with equivalised (modified OECD
scale) disposable income below 60 per cent of the median from website of
Statistics Finland, Statistics Database, Income Distribution Statistics, At risk of
poverty indicators, linked backwards at 1990 to estimates by Riihelä, Sullström and
Tuomala (2003, Table A.4.1) using OECD equivalence scale.
Individual earnings: From OECD iLibrary, Employment and Labour Market Statistics,
Gross earnings decile ratios, linked at 1980 to earlier series from Atkinson (2008,
Appendix F, Table F.3).
Wealth: Estimates by Roine and Waldenström (forthcoming).
References:
Berglund, M, Jäntti, M, Parkatti, L and Sundqvist, C, 1998, “Long-run trends in the
distribution of income in Finland 1920-1992”, Åbo Akademi University.
Eriksson, T and Jäntti, M, 1998, “Modelling the distribution of income and socio-
economic variables: Finland 1949-1992”, paper presented at the 25th
General
Conference of the IARIW, Cambridge.
3
From 2011 onwards Statistics Finland started to use households' disposable money income
as the main concept (imputed income from owner-occupied dwellings and taxable realized
capital gains are excluded). This was done in order to comply with international
recommendations and practices. (See the official explanation note.)
17

Jäntti, M, Riihelä, M, Sullström, R and Tuomala, M, 2010, “Trends in top income
shares in Finland”, in A B Atkinson and T Piketty, editors, Top incomes: A global
perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Riihelä, M, Sullström, R and Tuomala, M, 2003, “On recent trends in economic
poverty in Finland”, Tampere Economic Working Paper 23, Department of
Economics, University of Tampere.
Roine, J and Waldenström, D, forthcoming, “Long run trends in the distribution of
income and wealth” in A B Atkinson and F Bourguignon, editors, Handbook of
Income Distribution, volume 2, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
18

6. France
180
190
200
210
220
0204060
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Top 1% share in total estates Earnings at top decile as % median -(*)
Economic Inequality in France
Has the top decile of earnings been increasing in
recent decades?
No, earnings dispersion shows no apparent trend.
years?
No, Gini coefficient relatively stable since 1990s.
Yes, overall inequality (as well as wealth inequality and
poverty) fell from the 1960s to the 1990s.
decades?
Fell from 1970 to 2000.
shares over time?
No, top gross income shares fell from 1916 to 1945 and
then stable over post-war period.
Yes, top wealth share fell in post-war period while little
change in top income shares.
Additional noteworthy features Overall stability of inequality in recent years.
19

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient of equivalised (modified OECD scale) disposable
household income from website of INSEE, Revenus-Salaires/Niveau de vie et
indicateurs de l’inégalité from 2006 , earlier figures from Godefroy et al (2010,
Table 1), here linked at 2005, and Legendre (2004, Table 2), linked backwards at
1970 to series on gross income (excluding certain categories of income) from
Concialdi (1997, Table 11.11).
on work of Piketty (2001 and 2003) and Landais (2007).
Poverty: Percentage of individuals living in households with equivalised (EU scale)
disposable income below 60 per cent of the median (urban France) from website of
INSEE, Revenus-Salaires/Pauvreté.
Individual earnings: From website of INSEE, Revenus-Salaires, Distributions des
revenus salariaux for 2002-2009, earlier from DADS exploitation exhaustive de
1950 à 2006 (estimations for 1981, 1983 and 1990).
Wealth: Share of top 1 per cent in total estates at death from Piketty, Postel-Vinay
and Rosenthal (2004, Table A7).
References:
Concialdi, P, 1997, “Income distribution in France : The mid-1980s turning point”
in P Gottschalk, B Gustafssson and E Palmer, editors, Changing patterns in the
distribution of economic welfare: An international perspective, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Godefroy, P, Pujol, J, Raynaud, E and Tomasini, M, 2010, “Inégalités de niveau de
vie et mesures de la pauvreté en 2006”, INSEE website.
Landais, C, 2007, “Les hauts revenus en France 1998-2006: Une explosion des
inégalités?”, Paris School of Economics Working Paper.
Legendre, N, 1997, “Evolution des niveaux de vie de 1996 à 2001”, INSEE Première
947, Paris.
Piketty, T, 2001, Les hauts revenus en France au 20ème siècle, Grasset, Paris.
Piketty, T, 2003, “Income inequality in France, 1901-1994”, Journal of Political
Economy, vol 111: 1004-1042.
Piketty, T, Postel-Vinay, G and Rosenthal, J-L, 2004, “Wealth concentration in a
developing economy: Paris and France, 1807-1994”, CEPR Working Paper 4631,
Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.
20

7. Germany
140
160
180
200
220
020406080
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - disposable income, weighted by persons Gini - equiv disposable household income (*) Top 1% share, gross income, #1 -(*)
Top 1% share, gross income, #2 -(*) Top 0.1% share, gross income, #1 -(*) Top 0.1% share, gross income, #2 -(*)
% in households with income below 50% of mean % in households with income below 60% of median (*) Gini - individual wealth
Earnings at top decile as % median, #1 -(*) Earnings at top decile as % median, #2 -(*) Earnings at top decile as % median, #3 -(*)
Economic Inequality in Germany
in recent decades?
Yes, top decile has risen from 150 per cent of median in
1950s to 190 per cent at end of 2000s.
years?
Yes, the Gini coefficient in 2010 was 3 percentage points
higher than in 1998.
Overall inequality (and poverty) fell over the 1960s and
1970s.
decades?
Poverty rate increased from 10 per cent to 15 per cent
shares over time?
No, top gross income shares were relatively stable over
post-war period.
Yes, Gini coefficient of individual wealth fell 10
percentage points from 1973 to 1993 and then began to
rise.
21

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient of unequivalised disposable income, series 1,
from DIW (1973, page 224); Gini coefficient of equivalised (modified OECD scale)
disposable household income, series 2, for all persons in private households for all
Germany (West Germany from 1984 to 1990) from SOEPmonitor 1984-2011, page
86, published on the website of DIW Berlin; note that the data are based on
information collected in the German Socio-Economic Panel on annual income
(preceding year, so that the 2009 data are from the 2010 survey), linked backwards
at 1983 to data from the EVS (Income and Expenditure Survey) for West Germany
from Becker (1997, Tabelle 1) and Hauser and Becker (2001, page 89).
Top income shares: Series 1: shares of top 1 per cent and top 0.1 per cent in total
gross income (excluding capital gains) covering Prussia before 1919, the German
Reich from 1925 to 1938, and West Germany for 1950, from WTID4
(based on work
of Dell, 2007); Series 2 from 1950 for shares of top 1 per cent and top 0.1 per cent
in total gross income (including capital gains) also from WTID covering West
Germany until 1990 and thereafter Germany.
Poverty: percentage of individuals in households with equivalised (original OECD
scale) disposable household income below 50 per cent of the mean for all persons
of German nationality in private households for West Germany, from Becker (1997,
Tabelle 2) ; percentage of individuals in households with equivalised (modified
OECD scale) disposable household income below 60 per cent of the median for all
persons in private households for all Germany (West Germany from 1984 to 1990)
from SOEPmonitor 1984-2011, page 94, published on the website of DIW Berlin;
note that the data are based on information collected in the German Socio-
Economic Panel on annual income (preceding year, so that the 2009 data are from
the 2010 survey).
Individual earnings: Series 1 covering the German Reich from Atkinson (2008,
Appendix H, Table H.6); Series 2 covering West Germany from 1949 to 1991 and
Germany till 1995 from Atkinson (2008, Appendix H, Table H.3); Series 3 from
OECD iLibrary, Employment and Labour Market Statistics, Gross earnings decile
ratios.
Wealth: Gini coefficient for individual wealth covering Germany from Frick, Grabka
and Hauser (2010, Tabelle 2.6), linking the figure for 2007 at 2002/3 to the earlier
series (estimates for 1973 to 1993 relate to West Germany).
4
The original work by Dell (2007) covered data up to 1998 which are not reported here in
order to simplify the graph. Indeed, the two series are fairly similar during the overlapping
period from 1950 to 1998.
22

References:
Becker, I, 1997, "Die Entwicklung der Einkommensverteilung und der
Einkommensarmut in den alten Bundesländern von 1962 bis 1988" in I Becker and R
Hauser, editors, Einkommensverteilung und Armut , Campus, Frankfurt.
Dell, F, 2007, “Top incomes in Germany throughout the twentieth century: 1891-
1998” in A B Atkinson and T Piketty, editors, Top incomes over the twentieth
DIW (Deutsche Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung), 1973, “Einkommensverteilung und
–schichtung der privaten Haushalte in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1950 bis
1970”, Wochenbericht, No 25, Berlin.
Frick, J R, Grabka, M M and Hauser, R, 2010, Die Verteilung der Vermögen in
Deutschland, Edition Sigma, Berlin.
Hauser, R and Becker, I, 2001, Einkommensverteilung im Querschnitt und im
Zeitverlauf 1973-1998, Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Bonn.
SOEP Group. 2013. SOEP 2011 – SOEPmonitor Person 1984-2011 (SOEP v28). SOEP
Survey Papers 119: Series E. Berlin: DIW/SOEP
23

8. Iceland
172
174
176
178
180
010203040
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - equiv disposable household income (*) Top 5% share, gross income
Top 1% share, gross income -(*) % in households with income below 50% of median (*)
% in households with income below 60% of median (*) Gini - for employment earnings
Earnings at top decile as % median -(*)
Economic Inequality in Iceland
recent decades?
Yes, earnings dispersion appears to be on the rise since
the 1980s. Evidence is however limited.
years?
Yes, the Gini coefficient has increased by 5.5 percentage
points in the run-up of the crisis and then fell by 4
percentage points.
Limited evidence
decades?
Limited evidence
shares over time?
Limited evidence
No evidence.
Additional noteworthy features Effect of financial bubble and crisis.
24

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient for equivalised household disposable income
from EU-SILC, Eurostat website.
Top income shares: Shares of top 1 and 5 per cent in equivalised disposable
income, including capital gains, after direct taxation and benefits, from Olafsson
and Kristjansson (2010, Figure 6).
disposable income below 60 per cent of the median from EU-SILC, Eurostat
website; for 1986-1995 (with 50 per cent of the median) from Ólafsson and
Sigurðsson, (1996, Figure 2).
Individual earnings: Earnings at top decile from OECD iLibrary, Employment and
Labour Market Statistics, Gross earnings decile ratios; Gini coefficient for
employment earnings from Ólafsson, S and Sigurðsson (1996, Figure 2).
References:
Ólafsson, S and Kristjánsson, A S, 2010, “Income inequality in a bubble economy”,
Luxembourg Income Study conference, Luxembourg.
Ólafsson, S and Sigurðsson, A S, 1996, “Poverty in Iceland” in A Puide, editor, Den
nordiska fattingdomens utveckling och struktur, Tema Nord, Copenhagen.
25

9. India
0204060
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - per capita expenditure, #1 Gini - per capita expenditure, #2
Top 1% share, gross income -(*) Top 0.1% share, gross income -(*)
Per cent below absolute poverty line Gini - for individual earnings of regular workers
Economic Inequality in India
in recent decades?
Yes, the Gini coefficient for individual earnings increased
by 8 percentage points from 1993 to 2004.
years?
Yes, the Gini coefficient (from expenditure data)
increased by 3 percentage points from 1994 to 2010.
Yes, some decline in overall inequality after
Independence.
decades?
Falling at least since 1983. Note, however that we only
observe measures of absolute poverty.
shares over time?
Yes, top income shares fell from 1940 to 1980 and then
rose; share of top 1 per cent doubled.
No evidence
26

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient for per capita expenditure, series 1,from the
World Bank website, World Development Indicators; ; Gini coefficient for per
capita expenditure, series 2 from World Income Inequality Database WIID2c,
available on the UNU-WIDER website.
Top income shares: Share of top 1 per cent and top 0.1 per cent in total gross
income from WTID, based on work of Banerjee and Piketty (2010).
Poverty: Percentage below Planning Commission poverty line (absolute) from
Government of India, Planning Commision 2013, linked back at 1993 to Majumdar
(2010, Table 4.2), percentage below Planning Commission poverty line (absolute).
Earnings: Gini coefficient of wages of regular workers from Majumdar (2010, Table
4.4).
References:
Asian Development Bank, 2007, Key Indicators 2007, Asian Development Bank,
Manila.
Banerjee, A and Piketty, T, 2010, “Top Indian incomes, 1922-2000” in A B Atkinson
and T Piketty, editors, Top incomes: A global perspective, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Government of India, Planning Commission, 2013, Poverty Estimates for 2011-2012,
Government of India, Press information Bureau.
Majumdar, D, 2010, “Decreasing poverty and increasing inequality in India” in
Tackling inequalities in Brazil, China, India and South Africa, OECD, Paris.
27

10.Indonesia
01020304050
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - household expenditure data Top 1% share, gross income -(*)
Top 0.05% share, gross income Per cent below absolute poverty line
Economic Inequality in Indonesia
in recent decades?
No evidence
years?
Yes, the Gini coefficient (from expenditure data) has
risen by 4 percentage points from 1987 to 2007.
Yes, the Gini coefficient fell from 1964 to 1987.
decades?
Falling. The share of individual living in absolute poverty
went from 47 in mid-1970s to 14 percent in 2009.
shares over time?
Insufficient evidence
No evidence
28

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient for household per capita expenditure from the
website of Badan Pusat Statistik (Statistics Indonesia), consumption and
expenditure/selected consumption indicators since 2002; earlier observations from
Booth (2000, Table 1), and Krongkaew and Ragayah (2006, Table 2).
Top income shares: Share of top 1 per cent and 0.05 per cent in total gross income
from WTID, based on work of Leigh and van der Eng (2010).
Poverty: Percentage with expenditure below official absolute poverty line (see
Asra, 2000) for total population (rural and urban) from Perkembangan Beberapa
Indikator Utama Sosial-Ekonomi Indonesia (Trends of the Selected Socio-Economic
Indicators of Indonesia), October 2009, Table 5.4 (and total population figures from
Table 2.1), linked backwards at 1999 and 1996, and linked backwards at 1980 to
the estimates for 1976 and 1978 in Booth (1993, Table 5).
Individual earnings: no suitable data were found.
References:
Asra, A, 2000, “Poverty and inequality in Indonesia”, Journal of the Asia Pacific
Economy, vol 5: 91-111.
Asra, A, 1989, “Inequality trends in Indonesia, 1969-1981: A Re-Examination”,
Bulletin of Indonesian Studies, vol 25: 100-110.
Booth, A, 1993, “Counting the poor in Indonesia”, Bulletin of Indonesian Studies,
vol 29: 53-83.
Krongkaew, Medhi and Ragayah, Haji Mat Zin, 2006, “Income distribution and
sustainable economic development in East Asia: A comparative analysis”, paper
available from EADN Network.
Leigh, A and van der Eng, P, 2010, “Top incomes in Indonesia, 1920-2004” in A B
Atkinson and T Piketty, editors, Top incomes: A global perspective, Oxford
Miranti, R, 2010, “Poverty in Indonesia 1984-2002: The impact of growth and
changes in inequality”, Bulletin of Indonesian Studies, vol 46: 79-97.
Sundrum, R M, 1979, “Income distribution, 1970-76”, Bulletin of Indonesian
Studies, vol 15: 137-141.
29

11.Italy
140
150
160
170
180
01020304050
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - per-capita income Top 1% share, gross income -(*)
Top 0.1% share, gross income -(*) % in households with income below 60% of median (*)
Top 1% share in total estates Earnings at top decile as % median -(*)
Economic Inequality in Italy
in recent decades?
Yes, the top decile is now around 155 per cent of the
median (it rose to 167 before the onset of the 2007 Great
Recession), compared with 145 per cent at the start of
the 1980s.
years?
The evidence is not clear. The Gini coefficient increased
by approximately 4 percentage points from early 1980s to
2010. However, overall inequality was generally stable
since early 1990s. There was a step up in the Gini
coefficient around 1993 but this may in part reflect
changes in the underlying survey.
Yes, Gini coefficient fell by some 10 percentage points in
the 1970s.
decades?
Rising. The percentage of individuals living in households
with (equivalised) disposable income below 60 per cent of
the median went from around 15% in early 80s to
around 23% in 2012.
shares over time?
Yes, but the evidence is incomplete. The top gross
income shares have fallen in the 1970s and risen since
the early 1980s.
Yes, to some extent. Top 1% wealth share rose in 1990s.
Additional noteworthy features Some evidence of U-shaped pattern in post-war period.
Steep rise in top wealth share from 1989 to 2000. Gini
coefficient on household income relatively volatile over
time.
30

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient of per-capita income among individuals
computed by N. Amendola, A. Brandolini and G. Vecchi and taken from Vecchi
(forthcoming) based on work from Brandolini (1999) and Brandolini and Vecchi
(2011) and Vecchi (2011); income is deflated using a spacial index of the cost of
living at the regional level based on the work of Amendola, Kiswani and Vecchi
(2009).
Top income shares: Shares of top 1 and 0.1 per cent in total gross income from
WTID, based on work of Alvaredo and Pisano (2010).
Poverty: Percentage of individuals in households with equivalised (modified OECD
scale) disposable income below 60 per cent of the median from Bank of Italy, data
supplied by A Brandolini.
Individual earnings: From Atkinson (2008, Appendix K, Table K.4). Later figures
provided by Andrea Brandolini.
Wealth: Share of top 1 per cent in wealth from Brandolini et al (2004, Table 6,
adjusted figures) and Brandolini (forthcoming).
References:
Alvaredo, F and Pisano, E, 2010, “Top incomes in Italy 1974-2004” in A B Atkinson
and T Piketty, editors, Top incomes: A global perspective, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Amendola, N., Al Kiswani, B and Vecchi, G. (2009) “Il costo della vita al Nord e al
Sud d’Italia, dal dopoguerra a oggi. Stime di prima generazione”, Rivista di Politica
Economica, (2009), IV-VI, 3-34.
Brandolini, A. (1999), “The Distribution of Personal Income in Post-War Italy: Source
Description, Data Quality, and the Time Pattern of Income Inequality”, Giornale degli
Economisti e Annali di Economia, vol. 58, pp. 183-239.
Brandolini, forthcoming, “The Big Chill. Italian Family Budgets after the Great
Recession”. In C. Fusaro and A. Kreppel (eds.), Italian Politics 2013. New York:
Berghahn, forthcoming.
Brandolini, A. and and G. Vecchi (2011), “The Well-Being of Italians: A Comparative
Historical Approach”, Bank of Italy, Economic History Working Papers n. 19.
Brandolini, A, Cannari, L, D’Alessio, G, and Faiella, I, 2004, “Household wealth
distribution in Italy in the 1990s”, Bank of Italy, Economic Research Department.
31

Vecchi, G. (2011) "In ricchezza e in povertà. Il benessere degli italiani dall’Unità a
oggi", Bologna: Il Mulino.
Vecchi, G. (forthcoming) “A History of Living Standards in Italy, 1861-2011”
Monograph for Oxford University Press. In preparation.
32

12.Japan
50
100
150
200
250
0204060
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - household income, #1 Gini - equiv household disposable income, #2 -(*)
Gini - equiv household disposable income, #2 -(*) Top 1% share, gross income (*)
Gini- Wealth Earnings at top decile as % median #1, (*)
Earnings at top decile as % median #2, (*)
Economic Inequality in Japan
in recent decades?
No, the top decile as a percentage of the median was
narrowing in the 1960s and 1970s. However the ratio
shows little evident trend afterwards.
years?
Yes, the Gini coefficient shows an upward trend from
1980 to early 2000s, after which Gini appears to be
relatively stable.
The evidence is incomplete. However, the substantial
difference between available observations in 1938 and
1945, as well as the visible drop in top income shares,
suggests that the Second World War was accompanied by
substantial redistribution.
decades?
Rising from early 80s to 2000.
shares over time?
No. Post-Second World War shares lower than before war
and remained relatively stable. The recovery of top
income shares since the end of the 1990s is evident but
not salient.
Insufficient evidence.
Additional noteworthy features Difference before and after Second World War. Relative
stability of earnings dispersion.
33

Overall inequality: series 1, Gini coefficient for household income (pre-tax and
transfers and not equivalised) for the pre-second World War period from Minami
(1998, Table 4) (source also cited by Hayami (1997, Table 7.2) and Moriguchi and
Saez (2010, Figure 3.2)); Gini coefficient for redistributed (disposable) income,
series 2, from the Income Redistribution Survey, from Tachibanaki (2005, Table
1.1); series 3, annual Gini coefficient for equivalised disposable household income
from 1981 taken from the research of Lise et al. (2014) using data from the Family
Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES).
on work of Moriguchi and Saez (2010).
Poverty: From website of OECD, Growing Unequal?
Individual earnings: Series 1 computed by Facundo Alvaredo based on work by
Moriguchi and Saez (2010), Appendix 3C, covering all employees in the private
sector who worked for the same employee throughout a calendar year, excluding
temporary workers with job durations below one year, regular employees hired
mid-year, government employees and retirees; Series 2 from OECD iLibrary,
Employment and Labour Market Statistics, Gross earnings decile ratios;
Wealth: Gini coefficient for net worth for all population (home-owners and
tenants) from Tachibanaki (2005, Table 1.10).
References:
Hayami, Y, 1997, Development economics, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Lise, J, Sudo, N, Suzuki, M, Yamada, K and Yamada, T, 2014, “Wage, income and
consumption inequality in Japan, 1981–2008 : From boom to lost decades”, Review
of Income Dynamics
Minami, R, 1998, “Economic development and income distribution in Japan: An
assessment of the Kuznets hypothesis”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol 22:
39-58.
Moriguchi, C and Saez, E, 2010, “The evolution of income concentration in Japan,
1886-2005: Evidence from income tax statistics” in A B Atkinson and T Piketty,
editors, Top income: A global perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Tachibanaki, T, 2005, Confronting income inequality in Japan, MIT Press,
Cambridge.
34

13.Malaysia
01020304050
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - household income, series, #1 Gini - household income, series, #2
Top 1% share, gross income -(*) Top 0.5% share, gross income
Share of bottom 40 per cent in total income Per cent of households below absolute poverty line
Economic Inequality in Malaysia
in recent decades?
No evidence.
years?
No, the Gini coefficient fell from mid-1970s up to 1990,
remained relatively stable up to 2000 and started to fall
again.
Yes, from 1976 to 1990 the Gini coefficient decreased by
8 percentage points.
decades?
Falling. Percentage of households below absolute poverty
line fell from 49 to 11 percent from 1970 to 1995.
shares over time?
Not very clear in the data. Top shares started to rise in
2000.
No evidence.
35

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient for household income (not equivalised), series 1
from Snodgrass (1980, Tables 4.3, 4.6 and 4.7); series 2, from Department of
Statistics Malaysia, Household Income and Basic Amenities Survey Report 2009 and
2012, from Ragayah (2008, Table 1), with 1967 observation from Krongkaew and
Ragayah (2006, Table 2).
WTID, based on Atkinson (forthcoming).
Poverty: Share of bottom 40 per cent in total household income (not equivalised)
from Ragayah (2008, Table 1); percentage of households below official absolute
poverty line from Snodgrass (2002, Table 2-1).
Individual Earnings: No suitable data were found.
Wealth: No suitable data were found.
References:
Atkinson, A B, “Top incomes in Malaysia 1947 to the present”, WTID Methodological
Note, December 2013.
Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2009, Household Income and Basic Amenities
Survey Report.
Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2012, Household Income and Basic Amenities
Survey Report.
Ragayah, H M Z, 2008, “Income inequality in Malaysia”, Asian Economic Policy
Review, vol 3: 114-132.
Snodgrass, D R, 1980, Inequality and economic development in Malaysia, Oxford
Snodgrass, D R, 2002, “Economic growth and income inequality: The Malaysian
experience” in M G Asher, D Newman and T P Snyder, editors, Public policy in Asia,
Quorum Books, Westport.
36

14.Mauritius
01020304050
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - disposable household income Top 1% share, gross income -(*)
Top 0.05% share, gross income % of households with equiv income below 50% of median (*)
Economic Inequality in Mauritius
in recent decades?
No evidence.
years?
Yes, the Gini coefficient increased by 4 percentage points
since 2001 after a period of sustained reduction in
inequality.
Yes, the Gini coefficient fell by 13 percentage points
decades?
shares over time?
Yes, top gross income shares were falling from mid-1970s
to mid-1990s and rising in the most recent decade.
No evidence
37

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient for monthly household disposable income (not
equivalised) from report on Household Budget Survey (HBS) 2012, Table 3, report
on HBS 2006/07, Table 3, and report on HBS 2001/02, Table 5, linked to earlier
series for 1975 to 1991 from WIID, and figure for 1962 given by Subramanian (2001,
page 2).
WTID, based on work of Atkinson (2011).
Poverty: Proportion of households with equivalised income below 50 per cent of
the median from report on Household Budget Survey (HBS) 2012, Table 7 and
report on HBS 2006/07, Table 7.
Individual Earnings: To the best of our knowledge no data on earnings decile ratio
are available for Mauritius.
Wealth: To the best of our knowledge no data on wealth distribution are available
for Mauritius.
References:
Atkinson, A B, 2011, “Top incomes in Mauritius: A 75 year history”, working paper.
Subramanian, A, 2001, “Mauritius: A case study”, Finance and Development, vol
38: 1-7.
38

15.Netherlands
160
165
170
175
180
185
0204060
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - disposable tax unit income Gini - equiv disposable household income (*)
Earnings at top decile as % median, #1 -(*) Earnings at top decile as % median, #2 -(*)
Economic Inequality in Netherlands
in recent decades?
Yes, the top decile has risen relative to median since mid-
1980s. However, the evidence is incomplete.
years?
No, overall inequality has been relatively stable since
1990s.
Yes, the Gini coefficient fell from 1959 to mid-1980s.
decades?
shares over time?
No. Top gross income shares declined since 1919 and
remained relatively stable in recent years.
The top 1 percent share in total wealth fell for most of
the twentieth century and then levelled off.
Additional noteworthy features Long period of falling inequality.
39

Overall inequality: (supplied by Wiemer Salverda of the University of Amsterdam)
Gini coefficient for equivalised (CBS scale) disposable household income by
individuals for 1977 to 2009 from information supplied by the Central Bureau of
Statistics (CBS), linked backwards at 2000 to allow for the revision to the series
(the value for 2000 for the new series is 27.8 per cent and for the earlier series is
25.9 per cent); Gini coefficient for disposable income, not equivalised, among tax
units, from Trimp (1996, Staat 2).
Top income shares: Shares of top 1 and 10 per cent in total gross income from
WTID, based on work of Salverda and Atkinson (2007), updated by Wiemer
Salverda.
Poverty: Share of bottom 20 per cent in total (not equivalised) disposable income
from Sociaal-Economische Maandstatistiek 2001/04 ,Table 2.6.7, for 1995-1999, and
earlier data supplied by the CBS; Percentage of individuals living in households with
equivalised (EU-scale) disposable income below 60 per cent of the median from EU-
SILC, Eurostat website.
Individual earnings: Series 1: from Atkinson (2008, Appendix L, Table L.3); Series 2:
from OECD iLibrary, Employment and Labour Market Statistics, Gross earnings
decile ratios.
Wealth: Share of top 1 per cent of households in total personal wealth from Roine
and Waldenström (forthcoming), drawing on the work of Wilterdink (1984, page
269).
References:
Roine, J and and Waldenström, D, forthcoming, “Long run trends in the distribution
of income and wealth” in A B Atkinson and F Bourguignon, editors, Handbook of
Salverda, W and Atkinson, A B, 2007, “Top incomes in the Netherlands over the
twentieth century” in A B Atkinson and T Piketty, editors, Top incomes over the
twentieth century, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Trimp, L, 1996, “Inkomens 1959-1994”, Sociaal-economische maandstatistiek, vol 13,
No 12: 31-34.
Wilterdink, N, 1984, Vermogensverhoudingen in Nederland, De Arbeiderspers,
Amsterdam.
40

16.New Zealand
150
160
170
180
190
020406080
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - individual taxable income, #1 Gini - individual taxable income, #2
Gini - individual taxable income, #3 Gini - equiv disposable household income (*)
Top 1% share, gross income -(*) Top 0.5% share, gross income
Earnings at top decile as % median, #1 -(*) Earnings at top decile as % median, #2 -(*)
Economic Inequality in New Zealand
in recent decades?
Yes, the top decile has risen from 143 per cent of median
in 1986 to 186 per cent in 2012.
years?
No, the Gini coefficient has been relatively stable around
32 percent since 1996. However, it rose by 7 percentage
points between 1988 and 1996.
Yes, from mid-1950s to mid-1970s.
decades?
Poverty has substantially increased from 1996 to 2004
before decreasing mildly till 2009.
shares over time?
Yes, top gross income shares fell from mid-1950s to mid-
1980s, then rose from mid-1980s to mid-1990s.
Additional noteworthy features U-shape over post-war period. Top income shares
estimates for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 are affected
by changes in the income tax laws. Top shares series have
a break in 1951 (change in tax units).
41

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient for individual taxable income from Easton
(1983, Table 10.7 for series 1 (before the introduction of PAYE) and series 2 (after
the introduction of PAYE) and from figures supplied by Professor S Chatterjee,
Massey University, for series 3); Gini coefficient for equivalised (applying 1988
revised Jensen scale, described as close to the modified OECD scale) disposable
household annual income before deduction of housing costs from Perry (2010,
Table D.9).
Top income shares: The top income shares are from WTID, based on work of
Atkinson and Leigh (2008); top 0.5 percent is used in place of top 0.1 percent
series as the latter lacks observations for recent years. Note that top income series
have a break in 1951. Data refer to tax units before 1951 and to individuals from
1951 onwards.
Poverty: Percentage of individuals in households with equivalised (applying 1988
revised Jensen scale, described as close to the modified OECD scale) disposable
income before housing costs below 60 per cent of the contemporary median from
Perry (2010, Table F.2).
Individual earnings: Series 1 from Atkinson (2008, Appendix M, Table M.3), based
on the work of Easton (1983); Series 2 from OECD iLibrary, Employment and Labour
Market Statistics, Gross earnings decile ratios.
Wealth: share of top 1 per cent in total wealth (among adults) from Easton (1983,
Table 7.3).
References:
Atkinson, A B and Leigh, A, 2008, “Top Incomes in New Zealand 1921-2005:
Understanding the Effects of Marginal Tax Rates, Migration Threat, and the
Macroeconomy”, Review of Income and Wealth, series 54(2): 149-165.
Easton, B, 1983, Income distribution in New Zealand, New Zealand Institute of
Economic Research, Wellington.
Perry, B, 2010, “Household incomes in New Zealand: trends in indicators of
inequality and hardship 1982 to 2009”, Ministry of Social Development, Wellington,
ISBN 978-478-33500-2.
42

17. Norway
140
142
144
146
148
010203040
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - disposable household income Gini - equiv disposable household income (*)
% in households with income below 50% of median(*) % in households with income below 60% of median(*)
Top 1% share in total wealth (*) Earnings at top decile as % median (*)
Economic Inequality in Norway
in recent decades?
Yes, the top decile relative to the median was 8
percentage points higher in 2012 compared with early
1990s.
years?
Gini coefficient in 2011 is 4 percentage points higher
than in 1986.
Incomplete evidence. Nonetheless, top income shares as
well as top wealth share underwent substantial reduction
over the post-war period.
decades?
No evident trend.
shares over time?
Yes. Top gross income shares fell from 1938 to the 1980s;
since 1990 have nearly doubled.
Yes, the Top wealth shares have followed similar path to
top incomes.
Additional noteworthy features U-shape over post-war period. 2005 Gini and top shares
observations were affected by the tax changes coming
into effect in 2006.
43

Overall inequality: Gini for disposable (non-equivalised) household income from
Bojer (1987, Tabell 5); Gini coefficient of equivalised (EU scale) disposable
household income from 1986 from website of Statistics Norway, Income Statistics
for Households, Distribution of income, total population.
Top income shares: Share of top 1 and top 0.1 per cent in total gross income from
WTID, based on work of Aaberge and Atkinson (2010) updated by Aaberge, Atkinson
and Modalsli (2013).
Poverty: Percentage of individuals in households with equivalised (EU-scale)
disposable income below 60 per cent (or before 1986 50 per cent) of the
contemporary median (including student households), website of Statistics Norway,
since 2005 from Income Statistics for Households, Particular Groups, Table 5 and
from Rapporter 32/2013 by Ranjit Kaur (ed.) Tabell 3.2, 1996 to 2004 from
Personal economy and housing conditions, Table 06801, linked backwards at 1994
to earlier series from Income Distribution Survey 2005, Table 5.
Individual earnings: Series 1 from Atkinson (2008, Appendix N, Table N.3), linked at
2002 to series from OECD iLibrary, Employment and Labour Market Statistics, Gross
earnings decile ratios.
and Waldenström (forthcoming) drawing from Ohlsson, Roine and Waldenström
(2008, Table 1).
References:
Aaberge, R and Atkinson, A B, 2010, “Top incomes in Norway” in A B Atkinson and T
Piketty, editors, Top incomes: A global perspective, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Aaberge, R, Atkinson, A B and Modalsli, J (2013), “The ins and outs of top income
mobility”, Statistics Norway Research Department Discussion Paper no 762.
Bojer, H, 1987, “Personlig inntektsfordeling i Norge 1970-1984, Tidsskrift for
Sammfunnsforskning, vol 28: 247-258.
Ohlsson, H, Roine, J and Waldenström, D, 2008, “Long-run changes in the
concentration of wealth: An overview of recent findings”, in J B Davies, editor,
Personal wealth from a global perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Roine, J and Waldenström, D, forthcoming, “Long run trends in the distribution of
income and wealth” in A B Atkinson and F Bourguignon, editors, Handbook of
44

18.Portugal
180
200
220
240
260
01020304050
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - equiv disposable household income, #1(*) Gini - equiv disposable household income, #2(*)
Gini - equiv disposable household income, #3(*) Top 1% share, gross income -(*)
Top 0.1% share, gross income % in households with income below 60% of median, #1(*)
% in households with income below 60% of median, #2(*) Earnings at top decile as % median (*)
Economic Inequality in Portugal
in recent decades?
Yes, the top decile of earnings has risen sharply from 182
per cent of median in 1982 to around 252 per cent in
2000. Nevertheless, is worth noting that earnings
inequality was relatively stable or even decreasing since
2000.
years?
No, from 2004 to 2011 the Gini coefficient for household
(equivalised) disposable income has dropped by 4
percentage points.
Yes, during the 1970s (Carnation revolution in 1974).
decades?
Yes, relative poverty rate fell by more than a fifth from
1994.
shares over time?
Yes, top gross income shares more than doubled between
beginning of 1980s and 2003.
No evidence.
Additional noteworthy features Divergent movements at top (inequality increasing) and
bottom (poverty falling). Strong increase in earnings
dispersion from 1982 to 2000.
45

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient of equivalised (modified OECD-scale) disposable
household income from Rodrigues, Figueiras, and Junqueira, 2010, Quadro 4 (series
1), Quadro 6 (series 2), and Quadro 8 (series 3); the last of these is based on data
from the European Community Household Panel and EU-SILC. Data from 2009 are
from EU-SILC, downloaded from Eurostat website, Income and Living Conditions in
Europe.
Top income shares: Share of top 1 and top 0.1 per cent in total gross income from
WTID, based on work of Alvaredo (2010).
disposable income below 60 per cent of the median, series 1 from Rodrigues,
Figueiras and Junqueira, 2011a, Quadro 10, up to 2000, from 2002 taken from EU-
SILC, Eurostat website; series 2 for 1980, 1990 and 1995 from Rodrigues (2005).
Individual earnings: Series 1 from Atkinson (2008, Appendix P, Table P.3) with
updated figures supplied by C F Rodrigues (since 2002).
References:
Alvaredo, F, 2010, “Top incomes and earnings in Portugal 1936-2005” in A B
Atkinson and T Piketty, editors, Top incomes: A global perspective, Oxford
Rodrigues, C F, 2005, Distribuição do rendimento, desigualdade e pobreza, Ph D
thesis, Universidade Technica de Lisboa.
Rodrigues, C F, Figueiras, R and Junqueira, V, 2011, Desigualdades em Portugal,
Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos, Lisbon.
Rodrigues, C F, Figueiras, R and Junqueira, V, 2011a, “Portugal: um pais
profundamente desigual”, Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão, Lisbon.
46

19.Singapore
155
160
165
170
01020304050
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - among employed population, #1 Gini - among households, ranked by inc from work, #2
Gini - household equiv disp income(from work), #3 Top 1% share, gross income (*)
Top 0.1% share, gross income (*) Earnings at upper quartile as % median
Economic Inequality in Singapore
in recent decades?
Yes, however there is little evidence of trend in top
decile of earnings over 40 year period of rapid growth.
years?
Yes, the Gini coefficient increased in late 1990s up to
mid-2000s.
Incomplete evidence.
decades?
No evidence.
shares over time?
No. Top gross income shares were stable for fifty years,
before and after independence, but rose by 50 per cent
after 1997.
No evidence.
Additional noteworthy features Impact of 1997-98 Asian financial crisis.
47

Overall inequality: Series 1 per capita monthly income from work for employed
population only from Krongkaew and Ragayah (2006, Table 2); Series 2 per capita
monthly income from work from Krongkaew and Ragayah (2006, Table 2); Series 3
household income from work per household member (based on modified OECD
scale) including employer Central Provident Fund -CPF- contributions and after
accounting for government transfers and taxes, from Statistics Singapore “Key
household incomes trend, 2012”, Chart 3. The series is linked at 2002 back to 2000
using Gini based on household income from work per household member including
employer CPF contributions and after government transfers and taxes, from
Statistics Singapore (sheet T18 data from Key Household Incomes Trend, 2012,
spreadsheet).
WTID, based on work of Atkinson (2010), updated using the Annual Reports of the
Inland Revenue Authority, Appendix 5.
Poverty: no suitable data were found.
Individual earnings: Earnings at upper quintile as percentage of median from
Central Pension Fund earnings data, as described in Atkinson (2010), updated from
Yearbook of Singapore Statistics, Table 4.10. This source no longer contains
earnings figures.
References:
Atkinson, A B, 2010, “Top incomes in a rapidly growing economy: Singapore”, in A
B Atkinson and T Piketty, editors, Top incomes: A global perspective, Oxford
University Press.
Singapore Statistics, 2013, Key Household Income trends, 2012, papers and
publications.
Singapore Department of Statistics, 2013, Key household income trends, 2002,
Occasional Paper on income statistics
48

20.South Africa
350
400
450
500
550
020406080
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - per capita income, #1 Gini - per capita income, #2
Top 1% share, gross income (*) Top 0.1% share, gross income (*)
Percentage below Poverty Line Earnings at top decile as % median (*)
Economic Inequality in South Africa
in recent decades?
Yes, the top decile of earnings relative to the median
increased from 1997 to 2008.
years?
Yes, the Gini coefficient in 2005 is 5 percentage points
higher than in 1995. However, the Gini coefficient has
dropped by 2 percentage points from 2005 to 2008.
decades?
Falling. The percentage of people living in households
with per capita income below the national poverty line
went from 53 in 1970 to 32 in 2004.
shares over time?
Yes, top gross income shares fell up to the end of the
1980s; in recent years they have been rising.
No evidence.
Additional noteworthy features Break in the top shares series in 1990 (change in tax
units, from married couples and single persons to
individuals only).
49

Overall inequality: Series 1: Gini coefficient of per capita income from Leibbrandt
et al in Borat and Kanbur (2006, Table 3.1), where their estimates for 1996 and
2001 are linked to those for 1975, 1991 and 1996 of Whiteford and van Seventer
(2000); series 2 from Leibbrandt et al (2010a, Table 5.17).
Top income shares: Shares of top 1 and top 0.1 per cent in total gross income from
WTID, based on work of Alvaredo and Atkinson (2010). It is worth noting that the
top shares series have a break in 1990. Data refer to married couple and single
adults before 1990 and to individuals from 1990.
Poverty: Series 1: Percentage of people (all races) living in households with per
capita income below R 3,000 (at 2000 prices) from van der Berg and Louw (2004,
Table 5) from 1970 to 2000, linked at 1993 to series from Leibbrandt et al (2010,
Table 1.3).
Individual earnings: Top decile as per cent of median from Leibbrandt et al (2010a,
Table 5.19).
References:
Alvaredo, F and Atkinson, A B, 2010, “Colonial rule, apartheid and natural
resources: Top incomes on South Africa 1903-2007”, discussion paper, University of
Oxford.
Borat, H and Kanbur, R, editors, 2006, Poverty and policy in post-apartheid South
Africa, Human Sciences Research Council, Cape Town.
Lachmann, and Bercuson, K, 1992, editors, Economic policies for a new South
Africa, IMF Occasional Paper No 91, Washington, D.C.
Leibbrandt, M, Poswell, L, Naidoo, M, Welch, M, and Woolard, I, 2006, “Measuring
recent changes in South African inequality and poverty using 1996 and 2001 Census
data”, in Borat and Kanbur (2006).
Leibbrandt, M, Woolard, I, Finn, A, and Argent, J, 2010, “Trends in South African
income distribution and poverty since the fall of apartheid”, OECD Social,
Employment and Migration Working Papers No 101.
Leibbrandt, M, Woolard, I, McEwen, H, and Koep, C, 2010a, “Better employment to
reduce inequality further in South Africa” in Tackling inequalities in Brazil, China,
India and South Africa, OECD, Paris.
50

Van der Berg, S and Louw, M, 2004, “Changing patterns of South African income
distribution: Towards time series estimates of distribution and poverty”, South
African Journal of Economics, vol 72: 546-572.
Whiteford, A C and van Seventer, D E, 2000, “South Africa’s changing income
distribution in the 1990s”, Studies in Economics and Econometrics, vol 24: 7-30.
51

21.Spain
195
200
205
210
010203040
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - household income, #1 Gini - per capita household expenditure
Gini - equiv disposable household income (*) Top 1% share, gross income -(*)
Top 0.1% share, gross income -(*) % in households with income below 50% of median(*)
% in households with income below 60% of median(*) Earnings at top decile as % median (*)
Economic Inequality in Spain
recent decades?
years?
Yes, the Gini coefficient for household disposable income
increased by 4 percentage points from 2003 to 2011.
Some evidence of fall in inequality (as well as poverty) up
to 1990s.
decades?
No evident trend.
shares over time?
No. Recent increase in top income share is not salient.
No evidence.
52

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient of household income, series 1, is from Family
Budget surveys from United Nations (1981, page 297); series 2 relates to per capita
household expenditure from Escribano (1990, cuadro 4); series 3 is from EU-SILC,
downloaded from Eurostat website, Income and Living Conditions in Europe,
Table 5, linked at 2003 to the series related to equivalised (square root scale)
disposable household income among individuals from Luxembourg Income Study
(LIS) website Key Figures.
Top income shares: Share of top 1 and 10 per cent in total gross income from WTID,
based on work of Alvaredo and Saez (2010).
Poverty: Series 1: Percentage of individuals living in households below poverty
threshold, series 1 relates to those with per capita household expenditure below
50 per cent of the mean, from Escribano (1990, cuadro 5); series 2 relates to those
with equivalised (EU scale) disposable income less than 60 per cent of the median
from EU-SILC, downloaded from Eurostat website, Europe 2020 indicators. Data are
linked at 2003 with the series related to those with equivalised (square root scale)
disposable income less than 60 per cent of the median from Luxembourg Income
Study (LIS) Key Figures. The data are further linked back at 1995 to the series
related to those with equivalised (OECD scale) disposable income less than 60 per
cent of the median from Cantó, del Rio and Gradin (2003, Tabla 2).
Individual earnings: From OECD iLibrary, Employment and Labour Market Statistics,
Gross earnings decile ratio.
References:
Alvaredo, F and Saez, E, 2010, “Income and wealth concentration in Spain on a
historical and fiscal perspective” in A B Atkinson and T Piketty, editors, Top
incomes: A global perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cantó, O, del Rio, C, and Gradin, c, 2003, “La evolucion de la pobreza estática y
dynámica en España en el periodo 1985-1995”, Hacienda Pública Española, vol 167;
87-119.
Escribano, C, 1990, “Evolucion de la pobreza y la desigualdad en España, 1973-
1987”, Información Comercial Española, Octobre: 81-108.
United Nations, 1981, A survey of national sources of income distribution
statistics, Statistics Papers, series M, number 79, United Nations, New York.
53

22.Sweden
145
150
155
160
165
170
0204060
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - family market income Gini - equiv disposable household income (*)
% living in households below poverty line % in households with income below 60% of median (*)
Economic Inequality in Sweden
in recent decades?
Yes, the top decile of earnings has risen from 146 per
cent of median in 1983 to 166 per cent in 2011.
years?
Yes, the Gini coefficient for equivalised disposable
income is 10 percentage points higher in 2011 than in
1982.
Yes, much of twentieth century up to 1980s.
decades?
Rising. Relative poverty rate has doubled since 1995.
shares over time?
Yes, top gross income shares fell from 1916 to 1980 and
then rose.
Similar till the end of 1980s. Top wealth shares show a
downward trend from 1923 to end of 1980s; now levelled
off.
Additional noteworthy features Increase in overall inequality: during 1990s the average
Gini was 25.5 while in the first decade of the twenty first
century the average of Gini rose to 30. Top shares series
have a break in 1971 (change in tax unit definition).
54

Overall inequality: Gini coefficient of equivalised disposable income from 1975
from the website of Statistics Sweden, Distribution of income 1975-2011 (older
series), Household finances, Inkomstfördelningsundersökningen, linked backwards
at 1988 using ratio of 1989-rev to 1989 values; earlier series from 1951 to 1973 for
family market income from Björklund and Palme (2000, Table 2) linking tax
register data for 1951 and 1956 to data from the Swedish Level of Living Survey for
1967 and 1973.
Top income shares: Shares of top 0.1 and top 1 per cent in total gross income (of
tax units) from WTID, based on work of Roine and Waldenström (2010). It is worth
noting that the concept of tax unit has changed from married couples (filing a joint
tax return) to individuals (whether married or not filing tax returns separately) in
1971 (although there was an option to file separate returns from 1966).
Poverty: Percentage of individuals living in households with equivalised disposable
income less than 60 per cent of the median from 1991 from Income Distribution
Survey (IDS) 2008 in Statistiska Meddelanden, HE 21 SM 1001, Table 24, page 32,
and IDS 2005, Table 22, page 29, and IDS 2003, Table 27, page 35, and since 2009
from Statistics Sweden website, Household Finances (as above); earlier figures for
percentage of individuals living in households below Swedish Welfare Board line
from Table 2.
Individual earnings: Based on series given in Atkinson (2008, Appendix Q, Table
Q.5), from 2005 from OECD iLibrary, Employment and Labour Market Statistics,
Gross earnings decile ratios.
Wealth: Share of top 1 per cent in total net marketable wealth at market values
from Roine and Waldenström (forthcoming) drawing from Roine and Waldenström
(2009, Table A1).
References:
Björklund, A and Palme, M, 2000, “The evolution of income inequality during the
rise of the Swedish welfare state 1951 to 1973”, Nordic Journal of Political
Economy, vol 26: 115-128.
Roine, J and Waldenström, D, 2009, “Wealth concentration over the path of
development: Sweden, 1873-2006”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, vol 111:
151-187.
55

Roine, J and Waldenström, D, 2010, “Top incomes in Sweden over the twentieth
century” in A B Atkinson and T Piketty, editors, Top incomes: A global perspective,
56

23.Switzerland
150
160
170
180
190
01020304050
Percent
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Gini - after-tax income of tax units Gini - equiv disposable household income,#1 (*)
Gini - equiv disposable household income,#2 (*) Top 1% share, gross income -(*)
Top 0.1% share, gross income -(*) % in households with income below 60% of median (*)
Economic Inequality in Switzerland
recent decades?
Yes, the top decile of earnings has increased from 155
per cent of median in 1994 to 184 per cent in 2010.
years?
No clear trend.
None evident.
decades?
shares over time?
There is evidence of a mild U-pattern with top income
shares decreasing during the 1970s before rising again
since mid-90s. However, no great changes in top income
shares were recorded over the period as a whole.
Yes, but U-pattern was much more visible over the same
period.
57

Overall inequality:; Gini coefficient of after tax incomes averaged over 2 years of
tax units from Abele and Lüthi, 1977, Tableau 10) based on the estimates including
non-taxpayers by Noth (1975, Tabelle 19), where the year identified is second of 2
year period; Gini coefficient of disposable equivalised household income taken
from LIS website (Key figures), starting in 1982 and ending in 2004. Since 2006 data
on Gini coefficient of disposable equivalised household income taken from EU-SILC,
Eurostat website.
Top income shares: Share of top 1 and 0.1 per cent in total gross income from an
updated version of Atkinson, Piketty and Saez (2010, Table 13A.9), based on work
of Dell, Piketty and Saez (2007). Data obtained from the WTID website.
Poverty: Percentage of individuals living in households with equivalised (modified
OECD scale) disposable income less than 60 per cent of the median from EU-SILC
data, Eurostat website.
Individual earnings: Data up to 2004 from Atkinson (2008, Appendix R, Table R.4);
data after 2004 from OECD I Library, Employment and Labour Market Statistics,
Gross earnings decile ratios (note that the series is equivalent to that available on
the Federal Statistical Office website, Enquête Suisse sur la structure des salaires,
Tableau des salaires nets: secteurs privé et public - Conféderation ).
and Waldenström, forthcoming.
References:
Abele, H A and Lüthi, A P, 1977, “La repartition personelle des revenus en Suisse
entre 1941 et 1972” in G Gaudard, H Kleinewerfers and J Pasquier, editors, La
politique économique de la Suisse, Editions Universitaires, Fribourg.
Dell, F, Piketty, T and Saez, E, 2007, “Income and wealth concentration in
Switzerland over the twentieth century” in A B Atkinson and T Piketty, editors, Top
incomes over the twentieth century, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ecoplan, 2004, Verteilung des Wohlstands in der Schweiz, Berne.
Levy, R, Joye, D, Guye, O and Kaufmann, V, 1997, Tous égaux?, Editions Seismo,
Zurich.
Noth, A, 1975, Die personelle Einkommensverteilung in der Schweiz 1949 bis 1968,
Dissertation, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg.
58

Ohlsson, H, Roine, J and Waldenström, D, 2008, “Long-run changes in the
concentration of wealth: An overview of recent findings”, in J B Davies, editor,
Personal wealth from a global perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
59

La diseguaglianza economica dal 1900 ad oggi

La diseguaglianza economica dal 1900 ad oggi

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to La diseguaglianza economica dal 1900 ad oggi

Similar to La diseguaglianza economica dal 1900 ad oggi (20)

More from Lavoce.info

More from Lavoce.info (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (8)

La diseguaglianza economica dal 1900 ad oggi